Jobstown Defendants Not Guilty - The Role of the Gardai and the Judicial Process

RustyNut

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I don't see what an inquiry can achieve that GSOC couldn't. That is their purpose after all. To investigate possible misconduct.

Even GSOC themselves say that they don't have sufficient powers to effectively investigate AGS.

The chairperson of GSOC has said that her organisation lacks the teeth to investigate complaints against members of An Garda Sh.

Judge Mary Ellen Ring appeared before the Joint Committee on Justice and Equality calling for more powers to be given to the ombudsman to obtain information from garda/URL]

Captain Obvious

RustyNut wrote: »

Even GSOC themselves say that they don't have sufficient powers to effectively investigate AGS.

What additional powers would a enquiry have?

RustyNut

Captain Obvious wrote: »

What additional powers would a enquiry have?

The power to hold people who refuse to cooperate with or frustrate the inquiry in contempt.

McMurphy

Captain Obvious wrote: »

What additional powers would a enquiry have?

Wouldn't that depend on what terms of reference were?

A warts and all, independent inquiry would certainly get to the bottom of things, I know people on here my feign concerns about costs associated with that.

But, I'd guess they'd be the same people that were salivating, and gurning with glee when they heard Murphy had been arrested in a dawn raid, and later charged with an extremely serious offence, court case that lasted weeks, cost us tens of millions of euro (and public trust in the gards), and as many of us predicted, fell at the first hurdle, and was rightly laughed out of court.

blackwhite

Rick Shaw wrote: »

I thought a judge and jury decided she wasn't falsely imprisoned at all, merely inconvenienced by way of protest.

Not for 2 mins, 2 hours or 2 months.

You also (once again) have been engaging in ignoring the elephant in the room.



I'm not interested in your semantics, and attempts at going off on a tangent.

That's not true.

Firstly - the judge didn't decide anything, it was the jury on their own.

Secondly - there was no finding as to whether the two women were falsely imprisoned. The finding of the jury as to whether they were falsely imprisoned by the 6 named defendants. Whether they had been falsely imprisoned by other un-named individuals was not deliberated on.


Of course - it's easy to cry "semantics" whenever you get called out for making false claims :rolleyes:

For Reals

blackwhite wrote: »

That's not true.

Firstly - the judge didn't decide anything, it was the jury on their own.

Secondly - there was no finding as to whether the two women were falsely imprisoned. The finding of the jury as to whether they were falsely imprisoned by the 6 named defendants. Whether they had been falsely imprisoned by other un-named individuals was not deliberated on.


Of course - it's easy to cry "semantics" whenever you get called out for making false claims :rolleyes:

They should have an inquiry as to why the Garda purposefully carried out dawn raids on the wrong people. One Garda allegedly heard a man mention petrol bombs, seemingly didn't warrant any concern beyond the scurrilous sitters.

McMurphy

blackwhite wrote: »

That's not true.

Firstly - the judge didn't decide anything, it was the jury on their own.

From the judge. (accepted by the prosecution)

She said the prosecution accepted that if the jury found the women had not been totally restrained in the first garda car then the prosecution case "fell at the first hurdle".

Secondly - there was no finding as to whether the two women were falsely imprisoned. The finding of the jury as to whether they were falsely imprisoned by the 6 named defendants. Whether they had been falsely imprisoned by other un-named individuals was not deliberated on.


Of course - it's easy to cry "semantics" whenever you get called out for making false claims

See above ^ (agreed by the prosecution).....(fell at first hurdle).....

However, the defence lawyers argued there was no false imprisonment. They asserted that the accused were exercising their constitutional right of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression, and that the obstruction to the cars was no more than “an inconvenience, delay and a nuisance.”

DUBLIN Circuit Criminal Court erupted in cheers and applause this afternoon as Paul Murphy TD and five other men were found not guilty on all charges of falsely imprisoning former Tanaiste Joan Burton and her advisor Karen O’Connell.

:rolleyes:

Rolleyes? Seriously? Is there any need for that?

Bishopsback

Rick Shaw wrote: »

From the judge. (accepted by the prosecution)



See above ^ (agreed by the prosecution).....(fell at first hurdle).....

You're using lines from summation before deliberation.
How do you know this was the reason for the jury findings, did anyone give a detailed account of how the decision to acquit was reached?

McMurphy

Bishopsback wrote: »

You're using lines from summation before deliberation.
How do you know this was the reason for the jury findings, did anyone give a detailed account of how the decision to acquit was reached?

I can make an educated guess.

June 29th.

THE jury in the Jobstown false imprisonment trial has asked to review video footage taken from the garda helicopter of the scene at Jobstown in which former Tanaiste Joan Burton was allegedly falsely imprisoned.

The jurors resumed deliberations at 10.43am this morning after requesting the footage to "see could the jeep reverse."

The jury had already been advised by Judge Melanie Greally that reversing the jeep was one possible exit route that they could consider when deciding if Ms Burton and her advisor Karen O'Connell were falsely imprisoned.

The helicopter footage in which the pilot surmises the car could reverse (and can't understand why they "don't seem to want to do that") can be viewed here.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/tag/garda-helicopter/

Verdict reached on June 29th a few hours after reviewing said video.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/you-are-free-to-go-paul-murphy-and-five-codefendants-in-jobstown-trial-found-not-guilty-35870535.html

That's my guess....

What's yours?

FrancieBrady

Bishopsback wrote: »

You're using lines from summation before deliberation.
How do you know this was the reason for the jury findings, did anyone give a detailed account of how the decision to acquit was reached?

They were told to first decide if Burton and her assistant had been restrained in any way and to then, in the light of that decision, take the actions of the men into consideration.

dense

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I don't see what an inquiry can achieve that GSOC couldn't. That is their purpose after all. To investigate possible misconduct.

GSOC isn't fit for purpose.

blackwhite

Rick Shaw wrote: »

From the judge. (accepted by the prosecution)



See above ^ (agreed by the prosecution).....(fell at first hurdle).....





Rolleyes? Seriously? Is there any need for that?

The judges instructions to the jury include a big "if" - you've even quoted it yourself. Trying to misrepresent that as the judge "deciding" on a matter of fact is pretty low tbh.

When someone is as insistent on twisting the facts to push their agenda then roll eyes are more than appropriate

Jolly Red Giant

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I'm interested in this claim. The incorrect part of the statement seems to me to be immaterial to the case. Can you explain why you think the words "for the night" played a pivotal role int he case?

Because, according to the book of evidence supplied by the prosection to the defence, it was the key piece of evidence that led the DPP to imposing charges of false imprisonment on indictment.

McMurphy

blackwhite wrote: »

The judges instructions to the jury include a big "if" - you've even quoted it yourself. Trying to misrepresent that as the judge "deciding" on a matter of fact is pretty low tbh.

When someone is as insistent on twisting the facts to push their agenda then roll eyes are more than appropriate

Evidently, the jury agreed with the judge, and decided the two women weren't totally restrained.

Or, they decided the two women weren't falsely imprisoned.


That's not me twisting facts, that's me repeating them.

Bishopsback

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Evidently, the jury agreed with the judge, and decided the two women weren't totally restrained.

Or, they decided the two women weren't falsely imprisoned.


That's not me twisting facts, that's me repeating them.

Again that may not be factually correct.
That's not part of the judgement or the jury's findings.
You're supposing again really as the verdict was based on the six before the court, but a previous conviction had been gained on another person on a charge of false imprisonment. That's being appealed at present other posters have posted here recently.
But anyway, at present that's not fact, its your version of fact.

blanch152

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Evidently, the jury agreed with the judge, and decided the two women weren't totally restrained.

Or, they decided the two women weren't falsely imprisoned.


That's not me twisting facts, that's me repeating them.

The jury may merely have decided that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the six men were responsible for the false imprisonment - this could be because the jury decided there was a large crowd making individual responsibility unclear thereby creating reasonable doubt and requiring a not guilty verdict. We don't know because we were not in the jury room.

All of the views on this thread as to the reasons for the jury verdict are speculation.

Jolly Red Giant

Bishopsback wrote: »

Why is the Murphy case of more national importance than any other.

Because it was clearly initiated by politicians - involved a political motivated garda investigation and involved the testimony of every single garda witness (with the exception of one now retired garda) being proven false during the trial by video evidence.

Bishopsback;104137176
Trials take place all the time, people are found innocent or guilty all the time based on garda evidence. 

The trial was the enquiry, its over, they were found innocent, the garda weren't believed or at least their evidence was deemed of no consequence, the accused have legal rights to pursue this and get satisfaction that way if they wish, that should suffice I feel.
[/quote]
The 'trial' is not over - six defendants have been acquitted and one has had the charges thrown out - but there are still eleven more defendants due to be tried over the next twelve months who have been charged using the same book of evidence that was proven false in the recent trial. Furthermore, there is a teenage boy who was convicted of false imprisonment by a judge, in the judge only children's court on exactly the same testimony that was proven false over the ten week trial in the CCJ.

This is not a case of the garda evidence not being believed.

1. Three senior gardai on the day of the protest claimed that Paul Murphy conducted a vote to 'keep her here all night' (a false accusation repeated in the Dail by Leo Varadkar - a false accusation that he has refused to withdraw and refused to correct the record of the House) - video evidence proved that this never happened (and nobody else proposed such a vote either despite the claims on here). Not only that - the three gardai used exactly the same phrase in their testimony - leading the judge to question how this could happen and directing the jury that they must consider if these gardai had 'an agenda against Paul Murphy'.

2. Two garda witnesses made the same false claim about Mick Murphy - namely that he threatened the safety of Joan Burton - again using exactly the same phrase - and again proven false by video evidence.

3. One garda made a series of claims against Paul Murphy claiming basically that he was instructing people where to stand and what to do using a megaphone outside the church before Joan Burton left the church. Not only did the video evidence prove this to be false - it proved that the garda in question could not have even seen Paul Murphy during this period in time because he was standing out of view to all these events. When this was demonstrated to the garda he was asked to withdraw his false accusations by defence counsel and he refused.

4. It was proven during testimony that gardai, instead of writing their sworn witness statements from memory, used videos in the possession of the gardai and wrote their statements under direction from the officer in charge of reviewing the video evidence for the investigation. Furthermore, it was proven by video evidence in court that many of the claims made in these witness statements could not have been witnessed by the gardai making the claims.

5. It was repeatedly claimed by numerous gardai during the trial that there was no agreement with Paul Murphy to end the protest if the POU was withdrawn. Their claim was made on the basis that they could not enter an agreement with someone acting unlawfully. To have acknowledged such an agreement would be to indicate that the gardai did not believe that Paul Murphy was acting unlawfully. However, the previously mentioned retired garda - who was the inspector in charge of the POU during the protest admitted that he was party to an agreement to end the protest with Paul Murphy. Defence counsel then recalled the officer in charge of the garda operation on the day for further cross-examination. This superintendent was adamant when previously cross-examined that no agreement existed. This time when confronted with the conflicting testimony for the head of the POU he admitted that an agreement did actually exist. When asked by defence counsel why he gave false testimony during previous cross-examination he refused to answer the question.

6. The gardai have a legal responsibility, when conducting an investigation, to try and find evidence as to the innocence as well as the guilty of a defendant (failure to do this was the reason the judge tossed out the case against Sean Fitzpatrick a few weeks ago). No attempt was made to do this during the investigation into the Jobstown protest. 230 witness statements were taken - 180 from gardai - several from Burton, O'Connell and the rest of Burton's entourage at Jobstown (this is how the gardai described them in the witness box) - and the remainder from the staff in An Cosan. No effort was made to get a statement from a single person involved in the protest (except from those arrested) or from a single one of the graduates. Furthermore, job number four on the garda job list of more than ninety items for the investigation - a door-to-door canvass in Jobstown looking for witnesses to the protest was dropped from the job list a day after the job list was drawn up. Furthermore, during the trial garda witnesses falsely claimed that nobody was injured during the protest (a false claim repeated by Joan Burton last week when she gave a press conference about the trial verdict). One protester was in fact injured when the garda jeep containing Burton was driven onto his foot. We know this because an investigation into the injury and a requirement to get the medical records for the injured protester were originally on the investigation job list but were also dropped by the investigation team a day after the list was drawn up.

7. From the very start the gardai sought to 'find' evidence that would facilitate a charge of 'false imprisonment' rather than any other charge. We know this because when one of the defendants was arrested four months after the protest he was told the plan was to charge him with false imprisonment and he was threatened with a life sentence.

8. The judge outlined during the trial that the gardai had and have a legal obligation to protect the right of citizens to engage in protest - and that, in the case of the Jobstown protest, they had failed in this obligation. The jury were asked to consider if this was a result of the political people involved in the protest (on both sides) - and specifically why the first three indictments were all elected public representatives of Solidarity.

These are just some of the major issues from the investigation and trial - but they are just half a dozen of a very long list of issues relating to how the gardai conducted the investigation, the sworn witness statements that they provided containing large numbers of false allegations - proven false by video evidence - and the false testimony provided during the trial.

To suggest that it is all over because of the verdict is nonsense - will the same gardai go back into the witness box over the next two Jobstown trials (and the next group of defendants are due to have their pre-trial hearing in the CCJ next Tuesday) and make the same allegations that have already been proven false by video evidence? 

There is a serious issue of public concern for every single citizen now as to the veracity of garda testimony. Time and again people are found guilty in the District Court solely on garda testimony - and there are countless examples of this garda testimony also being proven as false. There appears to be a culture within the system that gardai do no give falsehoods in the witness box when it has now been proven they do - it is part of a culture that leads to the smearing of whistle blowers, the misappropriation of funds, the leaking of information to selected 'favoured' journalists etc. A public inquiry is necessary to ensure that this culture is rooted out and that the gardai are 'fit for purpose'.[/quote]

blanch152

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Because it was clearly initiated by politicians - involved a political motivated garda investigation and involved the testimony of every single garda witness (with the exception of one now retired garda) being proven false during the trial by video evidence.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When a judge directs the jury to ignore the sworn testimony of gardai (186, (I think) statements) then there should be an automatic enquiry.

We now have had two false and malicious claims on this thread that the testimony of every single garda witness was proven false.

Seriously overblown and wrong claims.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

We now have had two false and malicious claims on this thread that the testimony of every single garda witness was proven false.

Seriously overblown and wrong claims.

:D:D Apart from the fact that I clearly stated I was wrong after the transcript was published (something lacking in others on here)
My statement does not say 'every' Garda statement was 'proven false'. That was a little addendum you added.

It does however say that there were 186 Garda statements which is correct I think.

It strikes me that the usual people are now setting themselves up to say for evermore 'ah, but there was insufficient evidence for the court, but we all knows they was guilty, hint hint nudge nudge, say no more'.

Seen it all before on here, one poster even had a phrase that covered his right to insinuate and condemn, I must look it up.

blackwhite

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Evidently, the jury agreed with the judge, and decided the two women weren't totally restrained.

Or, they decided the two women weren't falsely imprisoned.


That's not me twisting facts, that's me repeating them.

They decided they weren't imprisoned or restrained by the six named defendants only.

Twist all you want to pretend it was something else - it's just showing yourself up TBH

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

:D:D Apart from the fact that I clearly stated I was wrong after the transcript was published (something lacking in others on here)
My statement does not say 'every' Garda statement was 'proven false'. That was a little addendum you added.

It does however say that there were 186 Garda statements which is correct I think.

It strikes me that the usual people are now setting themselves up to say for evermore 'ah, but there was insufficient evidence for the court, but we all knows they was guilty, hint hint nudge nudge, say no more'.

Seen it all before on here, one poster even had a phrase that covered his right to insinuate and condemn, I must look it up.

Fair comment?

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

They decided they weren't imprisoned or restrained by the six named defendants only.

Twist all you want to pretend it was something else - it's just showing yourself up TBH

You are ignoring this,

They were told to first decide if Burton and her assistant had been restrained in any way and to then, in the light of that decision, take the actions of the men into consideration.

That was an instruction/direction from the judge.

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are ignoring this,



That was an instruction/direction from the judge.

And they didn't say whether their finding was based on whether imprisonment did or did not happen, or whether is was based on the named 6 defendants not being the ones responsible for it.


The finding of the jury was simply that the 6 named defendants are not guilty of falsely imprisoning the two women.
There is no finding made of anything beyond that, no matter how much you and others want to twist the facts beyond that.

McMurphy

blackwhite wrote: »

They decided they weren't imprisoned or restrained by the six named defendants only.

Twist all you want to pretend it was something else - it's just showing yourself up TBH

I'm going to go on the instructions the judge gave, and accepted by the jury if it's all the same with you.

If it makes you feel any better, we can come back here after the juveniles appeal is heard (remember, convicted, but not by a jury) and the remaining cases are heard.

But to clarify, the jury found the two women weren't falsely imprisoned by the six defendants this thread is about.

(though I did think that was self explanatory)

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

And they didn't say whether their finding was based on whether imprisonment did or did not happen, or whether is was based on the named 6 defendants not being the ones responsible for it.


The finding of the jury was simply that the 6 named defendants are not guilty of falsely imprisoning the two women.
There is no finding made of anything beyond that, no matter how much you and others want to twist the facts beyond that.

I'll go with this form of words if it is ok.

The finding of the jury who were directed to consider first whether the two were restrained and then consider the actions of the defendants, was that the men were not guilty of false imprisonment - because you cannot be guilty of something that didn't happen.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'll go with this form of words if it is ok.

The finding of the jury who were directed to consider first whether the two were restrained and then consider the actions of the defendants, was that the men were not guilty of false imprisonment - because you cannot be guilty of something that didn't happen.

The first part of your sentence is factually true but the bit after the hyphen is purely your invention of what the jury decided.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, nobody on this thread was in the jury room, so we don't know the basis of their decision. The jury may well have accepted that there was a crime of false imprisonment committed, may well have considered the discrepancies between the video and garda evidence as immaterial but concluded that there was insufficient evidence to convict the six named people of the crime, purely because the number of people involved in the protest created reasonable doubt over an individual's culpability for the false imprisonment.

Now that is speculation on my part but has no less validity than the speculation on your part after the hyphen. The fact is, we know nothing of the jury's conclusions other than the men were found innocent of the particular accusation.

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'll go with this form of words if it is ok.

The finding of the jury who were directed to consider first whether the two were restrained and then consider the actions of the defendants, was that the men were not guilty of false imprisonment - because you cannot be guilty of something that didn't happen.

If you aren't interest in engaging in honest debate - then why bother?


The just found 6 defendants not guilty - no more, no less. The finding makes no statement as to why.

Taking one part of the judges guidance of various elements to consider and trying to claim, with no basis other than your personal bias and imagination, that this single element of the judge's closing statement was the only thing that matter, and ignoring everything else, just show how little interest in the truth you actually have. Not sure why I expected anything else TBH :rolleyes:

blackwhite

Rick Shaw wrote: »

I'm going to go on the instructions the judge gave, and accepted by the jury if it's all the same with you.

If it makes you feel any better, we can come back here after the juveniles appeal is heard (remember, convicted, but not by a jury) and the remaining cases are heard.

But to clarify, the jury found the two women weren't falsely imprisoned by the six defendants this thread is about.

(though I did think that was self explanatory)

The judge gave instructions on the steps they should follow to reach a verdict. Judges in criminal trials don't instruct the jury on what their findings should be - unless there is a directed verdict.
Your continued insistence otherwise, despite the facts being shown to you, shows either a massive ignorance of the legal system, or a deliberate desire to twist the truth for your agenda.

The jury made a finding about the 6 defendants only.
Whether or not false imprisonment was committed by any others at the scene was not part of their verdict - despite you falsely trying to claim otherwise yesterday.

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

If you aren't interest in engaging in honest debate - then why bother?


The just found 6 defendants not guilty - no more, no less. The finding makes no statement as to why.

Taking one part of the judges guidance of various elements to consider and trying to claim, with no basis other than your personal bias and imagination, that this single element of the judge's closing statement was the only thing that matter, and ignoring everything else, just show how little interest in the truth you actually have. Not sure why I expected anything else TBH :rolleyes:

Equally, you cannot say on what or how they decided the case.

I am just going on probabilities - that they followed the direction of the judge.

It sure as hell beats what is going on here -the insinuation, 'they were probably guilty but there wasn't enough evidence to convict'.

blackwhite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Equally, you cannot say on what or how they decided the case.

I am just going on probabilities - that they followed the direction of the judge.

It sure as hell beats what is going on here -the insinuation, 'they were probably guilty but there wasn't enough evidence to convict'.

Nobody here is claiming that those 6 were probably guilty - but keep building strawmen to avoid dealing with what people are actually arguing.

I ask again - if you don't want to engage in honest debate, why bother?
You seem more interested in twisting the truth, and them claiming that posters have said things they didn't.

The verdict of the jury is clear that the 6 didn't commit false imprisonment, and that appears to have been the correct verdict.

Whether or not other people committed false imprisonment is what I see people claiming here - but that doesn't suit your strawman so you insist on claiming people are doing something else.


The judge didn't direct them to reach any findings - she directed them on the various elements to consider when reaching a verdict. One of those elements (and there were a number of elements to be considered - all of which you want to ignore) was the question as to whether false imprisonment occurred or not.
Based on the evidence presented in this trial, and based on other trials, we have at least one person so far convicted of committing false imprisonment - but you seem to insist that no-one could possibly think false imprisonment happened at all :rolleyes:

You insistence that they based their verdict on one single element of the guidance, and ignoring the rest of her guidance speaks more of your fairly transparent agenda than anything else.

FrancieBrady

blackwhite wrote: »

Nobody here is claiming that those 6 were probably guilty - but keep building strawmen to avoid dealing with what people are actually arguing.

I ask again - if you don't want to engage in honest debate, why bother?
You seem more interested in twisting the truth, and them claiming that posters have said things they didn't.

The verdict of the jury is clear that the 6 didn't commit false imprisonment, and that appears to have been the correct verdict.

Whether or not other people committed false imprisonment is what I see people claiming here - but that doesn't suit your strawman so you insist on claiming people are doing something else.


The judge didn't direct them to reach any findings - she directed them on the various elements to consider when reaching a verdict. One of those elements (and there were a number of elements to be considered - all of which you want to ignore) was the question as to whether false imprisonment occurred or not.
Based on the evidence presented in this trial, and based on other trials, we have at least one person so far convicted of committing false imprisonment - but you seem to insist that no-one could possibly think false imprisonment happened at all :rolleyes:

You insistence that they based their verdict on one single element of the guidance, and ignoring the rest of her guidance speaks more of your fairly transparent agenda than anything else.

Firstly, look up what 'insinuates' means.

And given that NOBODY knows what went on in the jury room, we are all speculating.
I thought that was taken as read.

And what you have been reading is my honest 'speculation' that they followed the direction for the judge.

I also 'speculate' that the false imprisonment verdict will be overturned in the previous case.

Chips Lovell

Hi everyone,
Can I remind you all to familiarise yourself with the charter, in particular:

"Deliberately misleading posts or posters aiming to spread misinformation will be sanctioned. We do not expect posters to be experts in all areas, however, the onus is on all posters to fact check their information. If a poster is corrected, or information corrected in a thread, any poster who continues to relate misinformation as fact will be sanctioned."

Long story short, everyone can get something wrong, but if you're corrected on the facts, don't keep misstating them or you'll be sanctioned.

Thanks

For Reals

blanch152 wrote: »

We now have had two false and malicious claims on this thread that the testimony of every single garda witness was proven false.

Seriously overblown and wrong claims.

Like the charges and trial?

Three Garda that we know of gave false statements.

blackwhite wrote: »

They decided they weren't imprisoned or restrained by the six named defendants only.

Twist all you want to pretend it was something else - it's just showing yourself up TBH

But the narrative here was they were no angels and part of the thuggery or the greater 'mob'. Now we've finally got a distinction between alleged wrong doing and the peaceful protesters of the thread title. The question is regarding their trial and the process. Why dawn raids on peaceful protesters while seemingly not bothering with others. We could all reference the anecdotal 'evidence' of the Garda regarding the nameless alleged mob members, but it amounts to nothing. The short comings here are at the door of the Garda not the alleged possibly illegal utterances of people the Garda didn't pursue.

Jolly Red Giant

blanch152 said:
We now have had two false and malicious claims on this thread that the testimony of every single garda witness was proven false.

Seriously overblown and wrong claims.

The testimony of every single garda witness (with the exception of the now retired garda) was proven false.
You claim that this assertion is 'malicious' - prove that I am wrong -
here are the full transcripts of the trial
https://sites.google.com/view/jobstownnotguilty/trial

Captain Obvious

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The testimony of every single garda witness (with the exception of the now retired garda) was proven false.
You claim that this assertion is 'malicious' - prove that I am wrong -
here are the full transcripts of the trial
https://sites.google.com/view/jobstownnotguilty/trial

To this point I think that three Gardaí have been shown to have added three words to what Mr Murphy said and one Garda has been challenged on why he believed Paul Murphy was directing others. That's four Gardaí that you could arguably claim false testimony against. Can you cite your examples of all the others?

blanch152

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The testimony of every single garda witness (with the exception of the now retired garda) was proven false.
You claim that this assertion is 'malicious' - prove that I am wrong -
here are the full transcripts of the trial
https://sites.google.com/view/jobstownnotguilty/trial

That is just a complete and utter blatant lie.

The first garda to give evidence on the third document according to your transcripts is Garda Brian Cleary (just before Joan Burton gives evidence). His first piece of evidence is to to state that he is a cartographer, and he prepares maps and plans for court. He then goes on to give evidence about various maps and plans.

Not a single bit of his testimony was proven false. Having demonstrated that one Garda witness told the truth, I do not have to go through the rest of the evidence as it demonstrates clearly that your statement is a malicious and blatant lie.

Will you now withdraw the lie?

For Reals

Captain Obvious wrote: »

To this point I think that three Gardaave been shown to have added three words to what Mr Murphy said and one Garda has been challenged on why he believed Paul Murphy was directing others. That's four Gardahat you could arguably claim false testimony against. Can you cite your examples of all the others?

"I did it" also 3 words. The number of words, in this case also, is irrelevant.
As explained to you numerous times, the false statements infer intent, falsely, on the part of one or more of those charged to act in a way, contrary to the truth of what was thankfully borne out by the video evidence. Not to sidestep the fact that three Garda made the same statement. In this case the numbers show it unlikely those statements were a mere err on the side of a mistaken Garda not paying attention, yet willing to testify upon unfounded recollection, IMO. Which in itself would be disgraceful.

Captain Obvious

For Reals wrote: »

"I did it" also 3 words. The number of words, in this case also, is irrelevant.
As explained to you numerous times, the false statements infer intent, falsely, on the part of one or more of those charged to act in a way, contrary to the truth of what was thankfully borne out by the video evidence. Not to sidestep the fact that three Garda made the same statement. In this case the numbers show it unlikely those statements were a mere err on the side of a mistaken Garda not paying attention, yet willing to testify upon unfounded recollection, IMO. Which in itself would be disgraceful.

I think we've had this discussion already. The poster made a claim about many more false testimonies so that's what I'm interested in now.

Jolly Red Giant

blanch152 wrote: »

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The testimony of every single garda witness (with the exception of the now retired garda) was proven false.
You claim that this assertion is 'malicious' - prove that I am wrong -
here are the full transcripts of the trial
https://sites.google.com/view/jobstownnotguilty/trial

That is just a complete and utter blatant lie.

The first garda to give evidence on the third document according to your transcripts is Garda Brian Cleary (just before Joan Burton gives evidence). His first piece of evidence is to to state that he is a cartographer, and he prepares maps and plans for court. He then goes on to give evidence about various maps and plans.

Not a single bit of his testimony was proven false. Having demonstrated that one Garda witness told the truth, I do not have to go through the rest of the evidence as it demonstrates clearly that your statement is a malicious and blatant lie.

Will you now withdraw the lie?

Garda Cleary was not present at the protest - had zero input into the garda investigation and had no role in recounting the events of the day for the jury. His sole purpose was to confirm the authenticity of the maps to be used during the trial.
Now - address the real and serious issue that the testimony of every garda witness (with the exception of the now retired garda) was proven false during the trial.

Jolly Red Giant

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The testimony of every single garda witness (with the exception of the now retired garda) was proven false.
You claim that this assertion is 'malicious' - prove that I am wrong -
here are the full transcripts of the trial
https://sites.google.com/view/jobstownnotguilty/trial

To this point I think that three Gardaí have been shown to have added three words to what Mr Murphy said and one Garda has been challenged on why he believed Paul Murphy was directing others. That's four Gardaí that you could arguably claim false testimony against. Can you cite your examples of all the others?

Read the transcript - you don't have to go very far - you can actually start with Joan Burton - her testimony was proven false by a video recorded on her own phone. Then go to trial day 7 and start with the first of the garda witnesses - from there on every single garda witness (with the exception of the head of the POU on day 16) was proven to have given false testimony.

Jolly Red Giant

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

The testimony of every single garda witness (with the exception of the now retired garda) was proven false.
You claim that this assertion is 'malicious' - prove that I am wrong -
here are the full transcripts of the trial
https://sites.google.com/view/jobstownnotguilty/trial

To this point I think that three Gardaí have been shown to have added three words to what Mr Murphy said and one Garda has been challenged on why he believed Paul Murphy was directing others. That's four Gardaí that you could arguably claim false testimony against. Can you cite your examples of all the others?

Read the transcript - you don't have to go very far - you can actually start with Joan Burton - her testimony was proven false by a video recorded on her own phone. Then go to trial day 7 and start with the first of the garda witnesses - from there on every single garda witness (with the exception of the head of the POU on day 16) was proven to have given false testimony.

blanch152

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Garda Cleary was not present at the protest - had zero input into the garda investigation and had no role in recounting the events of the day for the jury. His sole purpose was to confirm the authenticity of the maps to be used during the trial.
Now - address the real and serious issue that the testimony of every garda witness (with the exception of the now retired garda) was proven false during the trial.

You have now changed the question asked and moved the goalposts. I take that as a retraction of your original blatant lie.

Captain Obvious

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Read the transcript - you don't have to go very far - you can actually start with Joan Burton - her testimony was proven false by a video recorded on her own phone. Then go to trial day 7 and start with the first of the garda witnesses - from there on every single garda witness (with the exception of the head of the POU on day 16) was proven to have given false testimony.

You made the claim. You read the transcripts and show us what you are referring to. That's how this thing works.

Chips Lovell

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Hi everyone,
Can I remind you all to familiarise yourself with the charter, in particular:

"Deliberately misleading posts or posters aiming to spread misinformation will be sanctioned. We do not expect posters to be experts in all areas, however, the onus is on all posters to fact check their information. If a poster is corrected, or information corrected in a thread, any poster who continues to relate misinformation as fact will be sanctioned."

Long story short, everyone can get something wrong, but if you're corrected on the facts, don't keep misstating them or you'll be sanctioned.

Thanks

I've now started banning anyone who's ignored this warning. Stick to the fact folks and if you're making any claims, please back them up.

Thanks

For Reals

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I think we've had this discussion already. The poster made a claim about many more false testimonies so that's what I'm interested in now.

You referenced it as 'three words have been shown to be added'. The amount of words are not the point. Very important not to miss the context completely. 'Three Garda gave false statements' covers it much better.

Captain Obvious

For Reals wrote: »

You referenced it as 'three words have been shown to be added'. The amount of words are not the point. Very important not to miss the context completely. 'Three Garda gave false statements' covers it much better.

I did go on to say they gave arguably false statements so I'm not sure what triggered you exactly. It's still irrelevant to the claim that all the rest of Garda testimony was found to be false.

RustyNut

Captain Obvious wrote: »

To this point I think that three Gardaave been shown to have added three words to what Mr Murphy said and one Garda has been challenged on why he believed Paul Murphy was directing others. That's four Gardahat you could arguably claim false testimony against. Can you cite your examples of all the others?

Those 3 Guards swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Not what might be the truth, what someone told me was the truth or what would be really convenient if it was the truth.

In my opinion the public are entitled to know why and how the 3 Guards came up with the same story that was proven to not be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

For Reals

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I did go on to say they gave arguably false statements so I'm not sure what triggered you exactly. It's still irrelevant to the claim that all the rest of Garda testimony was found to be false.

Your early post querying the significance of 'keep her here all night'. Which was explained. Followed by the inference that the number being three words was some how relevant? Just clarifying. No worries. Just concerned the narrative was starting to dismiss the seriousness of the matter.

Captain Obvious

RustyNut wrote: »

Those 3 Guards swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Not what might be the truth, what someone told me was the truth or what would be really convenient if it was the truth.

And there's no proof they didn't tell the truth. Being wrong doesn't make you a liar. There are hundreds of studies on the issues with eye witness recall and how it can be tainted.

For Reals wrote: »

Your early post querying the significance of 'keep her here all night'. Which was explained.

No it wasn't. Nobody explained how it was legally significant and justified the claim that it was a pivotal piece of evidence. Unless I missed it.

For Reals wrote: »

Followed by the inference that the number being three words was some how relevant? Just clarifying. No worries. Just concerned the narrative was starting to dismiss the seriousness of the matter.

You seem to be labouring under the opinion that I am following your narrative. That's not the case. And I don't think this particular issue is serious. It's an issue that arises all the time. It's why eye witness testimony is not weighted the same as cctv or forensics.

For Reals

Captain Obvious wrote: »

...
You seem to be labouring under the opinion that I am following your narrative. That's not the case. And I don't think this particular issue is serious. It's an issue that arises all the time. It's why eye witness testimony is not weighted the same as cctv or forensics.

The narrative. The collective story unfolding within the combination of everyone's posts.
If three or more Garda regularly give false statements, the same false statement in the same case, as you seem to be inferring, and you don't see it as particularly serious, Fair enough. That's the attitude has us with the organisations we have I would imagine.